Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics 750 and NVIDIA Quadro 5000 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The Intel part is a 2021 integrated GPU built for power efficiency, while the Quadro 5000 is a 2011 professional workstation card built for raw throughput. Benchmark results show the Quadro 5000 holds a measurable edge in the single available compute test, though the Intel chip counters with modern API support and a dramatically lower power footprint.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 by a decisive margin. The Quadro scores 7,289 points, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 manages 6,743 points. That is a 7.5% deficit for the Intel part, a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput. Looking at the underlying specifications, the Quadro’s advantage is easy to explain: it packs 352 shading units versus Intel’s 256, and its 40 texture mapping units and 40 render output units dwarf Intel’s 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The Quadro also delivers 722.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to 665.6 GFLOPS on the Intel chip, and its 11.29 GPixel/s pixel rate edges out Intel’s 10.40 GPixel/s.

However, the Intel part is not without its own wins in the broader benchmark landscape. Its average benchmark score across all tests sits at 7,441, which is higher than the Quadro’s 7,289 average. That is a 2.0% advantage for Intel when considering the full benchmark suite, driven largely by its strong Vulkan showing. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 8,138 in Geekbench Vulkan, a test the Quadro cannot even run due to its lack of Vulkan support. This gives the Intel chip a significant edge in any Vulkan-based workload, despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head.

Context from nearest rivals further clarifies the picture. The Intel UHD Graphics 750’s average score of 7,441 puts it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 0.4% (7,472) and the Intel Arc A310 by 1.4% (7,550). The Quadro 5000’s average of 7,289 places it 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222) and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203). Both cards sit at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are firmly mid-pack performers in the current landscape.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two products is enormous, reflecting a decade of GPU evolution. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is built on Intel’s Generation 12.1 architecture, using the Rocket Lake chip and a 14 nm+++ process node manufactured by Intel. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it shares system memory rather than having its own dedicated VRAM. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 1300 MHz, and the whole thing draws just 15 W of power.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000, by contrast, is a discrete dual-slot card built on the Fermi architecture with a GF100 chip. It uses TSMC’s 40 nm process and packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. It features 2.5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The card measures 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W. Its TDP is 152 W, more than ten times the Intel chip’s power draw. The Quadro outputs to 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort connectors, while the Intel IGP’s outputs are motherboard dependent.

API support is another stark differentiator. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 5000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support whatsoever. This means the Intel part is compatible with modern graphics APIs that the Quadro simply cannot handle, even though the Quadro’s raw compute in older APIs is higher. The Intel chip also offers FP16 performance of 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro lists no FP16 capability at all.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear split decision. For raw compute in OpenCL-based workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the faster card, delivering a 7.5% higher score in that specific test. Its 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs give it a hardware advantage that shows up in pixel and texture throughput. If a workload is built around OpenCL and cannot leverage newer APIs, the Quadro is the better choice.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins on versatility and efficiency. Its higher average benchmark score of 7,441 versus 7,289 indicates that across a broader range of tests, it performs better overall. The Vulkan score of 8,138 is a major selling point, as Vulkan is now a standard API for modern games and compute applications. The Intel chip also consumes just 15 W compared to the Quadro’s 152 W, making it far more suitable for low-power or mobile systems. Its system-shared memory architecture eliminates the need for a dedicated VRAM pool, simplifying system design.

The launch MSRP of the Quadro 5000 was 2,499 USD. Given that both products are end-of-life, the choice depends entirely on the target workload. A user with legacy OpenCL applications that demand peak compute throughput would favor the Quadro. A user building a modern, power-efficient system with Vulkan support would overwhelmingly prefer the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has an average benchmark score of 7,441, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. The Intel part leads by 2.0% on average.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro 5000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro 5000 scores 7,289 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6,743 for the Intel UHD Graphics 750, a 7.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support listed, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 supports Vulkan 1.4 and scores 8,138 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W. The Quadro also requires a 450 W suggested PSU and a 6-pin power connector.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and 1.4% behind the Intel Arc A310. The Quadro 5000 is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750 and 1.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 7.5% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is backed by superior raw hardware specs: more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus dedicated GDDR5 memory with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 722.3 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and 22.57 GTexel/s texture rate make it the stronger choice for classic compute tasks that rely on OpenCL, such as legacy scientific simulations or professional rendering pipelines built before modern APIs took over. Its 2.5 GB dedicated VRAM also means it does not compete with the CPU for system memory, which can be an advantage in memory-constrained environments.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins in Vulkan-based workloads and overall efficiency. Its 8,138 Vulkan score is a clear demonstration of modern API capability that the Quadro lacks entirely. The higher average benchmark score of 7,441 shows that across a broader range of tests, the Intel part outperforms the Quadro. The 15 W TDP versus 152 W is a massive efficiency win, making the Intel chip suitable for thin-and-light laptops or compact desktops where power and thermals are critical. Its system-shared memory architecture simplifies hardware requirements, and DirectX 12 (12_1) support enables modern gaming features that the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0) cannot match. For any workload that can leverage Vulkan or DirectX 12, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the superior choice.